Due to the pressures of editing this website and the various demands that are placed on me throughout the ABC, it is often difficult to carve out enough time during the week to write. And not just to write, but to contribute - to bring the fruits of reading and patient reflection to bear on things that matter.

I've never found writing particularly easy because the act of writing is so important for me. Indeed, I never really know what I think about something until I have to write about it. In coming weeks, I'll be redoubling my efforts to contribute more substantial pieces more regularly (I've got one in the works on the "tormented mind" of the heretic-bishop Richard Holloway and the tragedy of liberal Anglicanism). But, every so often, I'll be using this space to express more succinctly some thoughts in response to the week that's been - to use this "Editor's Blog" as something more like, well, a blog.

Hopefully, you'll join me in the "Comments" section below to flesh some of these half-formed ideas out.

The marriage equality "debate" - why both sides are wrong

I must confess that I found all those self-congratulatory expressions of victory, following news last week that same-sex marriage legislation was "resoundingly" voted-down in Federal Parliament, rather disgusting. For me, this was just the latest reminder that the debate surrounding "marriage equality" is toxic - and I fear both sides are to blame.

For those in favour of marriage equality, same-sex marriage has become a litmus test, a kind of shibboleth that one must utter to avoid the label "homophobe" or "bigot," and increasingly to be given a hearing in public debate more generally. This is frankly preposterous, for there are many ways of recognizing and indeed celebrating the love expressed by same-sex couples, while being convinced that "marriage" properly connotes sexual complementarity and thus sexual difference.

On the other side, those who oppose same-sex marriage seem content, even eager, for this issue to remain trapped in our partisan quagmire, for the issue to be an "issue" - or worse still, a "cause" - rather than a profound problem that implicates the lives and loves of others. The eventual price of maintaining such a stance seems, all too often, to be the denigration of the depth and authenticity of the love capable of being expressed by a same-sex couple.

Both positions are corrupt, and signal the lack of real debate - just interested parties shouting past one another. Whether or not you support "marriage equality," last week's vote in the upper and lower houses of Parliament is no cause for celebration, precisely because the result signifies hurt for so many.

The next step, I believe, is for those who support the extension of "marriage" to include same-sex couples to retreat from their insistence that any recognition of "civil unions" would represent a form of entrenched discrimination; and for those who oppose "marriage equality," especially the churches, to move to sacramentally recognise civil unions, and thus to celebrate the decision of those same-sex couples to promise fidelity to one another. As John Milbank has pointed out, in what remains one of the most important theological contributions to this debate:

"this would render the strongest possible theological statement of the view that it is possible to recognise the legitimacy of faithful homosexual union without conceding that this is tantamount to marriage - a view that is entirely logical and has many historical precedents in different cultures. The possibility of blessing same-sex friendships was already mooted by the Russian Orthodox philosopher Pavel Florensky early in the twentieth century, and while he made no mention of any homosexual character to these unions, it could well be argued that this silence continues to be advisable. For there is a certain sense in which physical love between members of the same sex is not "sex," as this term clearly implies sexual difference. Issues of acceptable modes of physical encounter (as in the case of heterosexual couples also) should surely be left to individuals and their confessors."

How do you solve the problem of religious extremists?

It's important to observe that neither local religious communities - whether churches, mosques, synagogues or temples - nor religious leaders exert the same influence or authority on the lives of individual believers that they once did. But this has less to do with the waning of religion's moral authority in secularising West, than it does with the privatisation and individualisation of belief. Increasingly, believers tend to tailor their own version of "faith," drawing on readily accessible material and on the experience of other believers in other parts of the world.

The problem, as we have seen across religions, is that such tailor-made faiths soon become orphans from the Tradition to which they claim to belong, and so deaf to the patient, humane and highly self-critical debates that make up the Tradition. In other words, belief that has cut itself loose from tradition and authority can quickly become little more than a means to legitimate one's own bigotry, chauvinism, violence and ignorance.

Perhaps it is the separation of some Muslims from their own communities, and their heightened though often distorted sense of solidarity with other Muslims (an expression of their sense of belonging to a global Umma), that is an important and often neglected factor in the protests and outbreaks of violence we've seen of late. Its worth pointing out, however, that calls for such Muslims to "grow up" or "get over it" or otherwise conform to certain Western values is not only likely to be ineffective - it may well be counter-productive.

The answer to such violence isn't less seriousness about Islam and its tradition, but more. This is why well-educated, theologically literate Muslim leaders, scholars and teachers (as opposed to what Khaled Abou El Fadl refers to as "illiterate puritanical supremacists"), who can embody fidelity to the teachings of the Qur'an and hadith, are so important. Such leaders dedicating themselves to the instruction and moral formation of their communities will, ultimately, be the best antidote against illiterate extremism.

It is also worth noting that Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular have stridently warned against the dangers of idolatry - of making "God" in one's own image, and of allowing faith to become a pretext for injustice, evil and godlessness. This has rarely been expressed more compellingly, and with more moral seriousness, than by Khaled Abou El Fadl:

"The consistent commission of repulsive acts of ugliness by people who believe that they are acting in the name of Islam ought to give Muslims serious pause. From the perspective of a believing Muslim, I must worry about God's covenant with the Muslim people, especially the Qur'an's warnings to Muslims that if they fail to establish justice and bear witness to the truth, God owes us, Muslims, nothing, and is bound to replace us with another people who are more capable of honouring God through establishing justice on this earth. The covenant identified in the Qur'an and given to Muslims is not an entitlement. The Qur'an consistently emphasizes that the covenant given to Muslims is contingent, and that the failure to do it justice will lead God to abandon those once entrusted with the Divine covenant to their own vices and the consequences of their evil deeds. Looking at the sheer amount of ugliness perpetuated in the past twenty years in Islam's name, only the most deluded or self-absorbed Muslim would remain unconcerned."

Is Islam compatible with multiculturalism in Australia?

It's important to clarify what we mean by "multiculturalism" in the first place. If "multiculturalism" refers to a benign space in which we refuse to allow the defining beliefs and practices of certain groups of people to encroach on the lived experience of others - in other words, a space in which a particular social order, "liberalism," is dominant and other cultural expressions are permitted as long as they too are liberal - then all robust cultural or religious forms might be considered "incompatible."

To put this a little more simply, all too often, our understanding of multiculturalism resembles that of a food-court in a shopping centre: we welcome different cultural groups, as long as they aren't too spicy or too exotic or too strong - as long as they have already been rendered somewhat bland or inoffensive to our sensibilities. All such "strong" elements (like religion, custom, group identity) must remain private, out of sight, and never impinge on politics or public order.

On this understanding, the guiding principle is that of tolerance. This understanding of multiculturalism tends to be rather more individualistic and rights-oriented. It is also a model of multiculturalism within which offence can flourish, because the various groups are inevitably reduced to caricatures, or superficial versions of themselves. As many social scientists and political theorists have observed, such a "tolerant" order can be found oppressive and claustrophobic.

But this, of course, is not the only way of thinking about multiculturalism. A different way would replace mere "tolerance" with more active solidarity, dialogue and mutual self-criticism. It would allow the dominant culture to define itself through its active, ongoing relationship with the other cultures that comprise it - allowing these others to, as Rowan Williams puts it, "make us strangers to ourselves" by questioning our assumptions and often latent bigotries. It would shift the emphasis from individual rights to group identity, which invariably includes religious belief and practice. It would also explore ways, not of "tolerantly" avoiding others, but of cooperatively discerning and then pursuing our goods in common - as Luke Bretherton argues:

"The conversation in ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan cities such as London - and to a lesser extent Sydney and Melbourne - needs to move beyond advocating working 'side-by-side', and instead should discuss what it means to be part of a robust civil society within which religious groups undertake shared political action in pursuit of goods in common ... Real encounter, dialogue and understanding is, I would suggest, best generated as a by-product of shared civic action, because in such shared civic action the focus is neither on face-to-face encounter nor even on simply working side-by-side. Rather, the focus is rightly on the pursuit and protection of goods in common - or, to put it another way, it is through the relationships that emerge between people of different faiths and none, as they identify and uphold the things they love and hold dear, that something genuinely worthwhile emerges.

Such common, public action and civic association is part of what it means to participate in civil society, and is best understood as a form of civic or public friendship ... Religious institutions, and common action between them, are crucial to invigorating a robust civil society and contradicting the commodification and instrumentalisation of social relationships. It is the location of inter-faith relations within the context of invigorating civil society and establishing limits to the market and the state - rather than as a response to a security threat, or as a way of negotiating a post-secular settlement, much less as an expression of the need to generate social cohesion or deliver social welfare more efficiently - that gives real urgency to inter-faith relations and its conceptualisation as a civic practice."

Now, all this in no way excuses the thuggish and no-doubt opportunistic exploitation of feigned "offense" that we've witnessed recently. But the real question is not whether Islam is compatible with a perhaps impoverished or overly modest understanding of multiculturalism - which can so easily devolve into little more than liberal "monoculturalism" fuelled by resentment - but whether Muslims can become an essential part of how we define ourselves? Can what they see, as Rowan Williams puts it, be part of the world that we see?

Actions

Share

Comments (61)

ethicalblabbing :

30 Nov 2012 5:47:58am

Have you heard of the story regarding France banning the use of burqas in 2012 under the argument that Frane protects gender equality abd that burqas are mean of hiding identity? Now muslim women are fined or even arrested at home if caught wearing burqas in public. What is your view in that? Here is a post covering the multicultural perspective of the society and how cultures should adapt when in proximity to each other: http://ethicalblabbing.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/when-in-rome-do-as-romans-do/

Jaypop :

24 Oct 2012 5:11:49pm

This dilemma is one of the consequences of fusing religion and government. Marriage was originally a religious sacrament or observance but later became a state sanctioned union with legal consequences. The resolution would lie in splitting the two. Church marriages would have religious consequences and civil unions civil consequences. Some couples might opt for one or the other - some for both. Civil unions should be available to any consenting and capable couples, regardless of sexual preference or religious affiliation. Marriages, or religious unions, should be available to any person who are accepted as members of that organisation. It will be up to the religious institution what criteria their members need to fulfill in order to marry. My advice to same sex couples who are not allowed to marry within a particular religious institution is to find one that does allow it - and let's face it all the permutations are accepted somewhere. After all why would someone want to belong to a church that does not accept their lifestyle. All quite simple really. Unfortunately church and state are still entwined. Once we get past that hangover from the middle ages, this debate will be rendered nugatory. The other hang over from the past is one set of people believing they have the right to impose their values onto others. Jesus talked about that a long time ago when he said "he [or she] who is without sin, cast the first stone."

coloru :

24 Oct 2012 2:54:01pm

The denial of reality here is what astounds me. We have here a debate held in the highest office of the country that is akin to determining whether superman would beat mighty mouse in a wrestling contest. Both sides are being taken for a ride by politicians and the media. Both sides are delusional. Both sides are putting their own interests in front of the more immediate and serious interests that the state has a responsibility to address.

For example, children who have suffered untold abuse are being thrust into state care only to be subjected to further abuse by some foster carers. While there are many foster carers who are wonderful saviours they would know there are some who are not. The state has a responsibility to these children and to Australian citizens to stop this. This is a serious issue that the state can do more on. This is the role of the state.

The education and health industries are in crisis. Ninety-year-old people are being resuscitated, admitted to emergency departments and incubated at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars while children (and adults) in pain are put on waiting lists for months or even years to have a rotten tooth attended to. Teachers in schools are constrained by budgets and paperwork and bureaucracy to the point where the children's involvement in the class is secondary to a principle meeting a budget.

The debate on marriage equality is a distraction from real politics. The answer has always been simple but neither side wants to for-go the recognition they seek: remove marriage from legislation! Maintain recognition of de-facto relationships where necessary (eg. for reasons with financial implications). Currently this structure is in place anyway. Marriage can continue to go on unheeded. Same-sex, inter-sex, anti-sex, extra-sex people can develop whatever "union" process they like. None would be recognised by the state any more than under the current de-facto definitions of the law.

The state has no sensible role in legislating on marriage, it only does so to maintain the religious affiliation with control of government. Any Christian worth their salt would agree that marriage is not an act of parliament and that in a sectarian society the government has no role to play. Any Christian and/or same-sex marriage proponent worth their salt would agree that a child at risk of abuse had more cause for government intervention and legislation than the sexual interests of consenting adults.

Yet again, Australians are paying for a political debate by foregoing addressing so many far more serious questions.

RalphH :

23 Oct 2012 3:55:39am

Scott, I found your comments to be an exercise in appeasement that ultimately fails in the form you suggest but I have another solution. You said, “.... for there are many ways of recognizing and indeed celebrating the love expressed by same-sex couples, while being convinced that "marriage" properly connotes sexual complementarity and thus sexual difference.”

By, I believe rightly, defining the proper basis for marriage as “sexual complementarity and thus sexual difference”, you have demonstrated that this issue is not really about “marriage equality”.

I agree with your point about recognition of civil unions but not as you suggest “sacramentally” by the churches. A 'civil union' is a CIVIL union, not a sacrament. There is no basis for making it a church sacrament.

If the objective is uniformity (i.e. currently being mistaken for equality) then every couple could be required to record a civil union. Marriage would still be a sub-set of couples conforming to the complementarity/sex difference issue - thus maintaining it's true meaning and integrity.

Brazza :

19 Oct 2012 11:19:53pm

After engaging with this important matter I find it disappointing that there is so little common ground in which to plant constructive comment. Disciplines including theology, law, logic and ethics are extremely helpful in promoting clarity and cutting through prejudice, bigotry and mutual hostility. If the homophobia-gay marriage debate has come to this, I wonder anyone really thought parliament could have progressed the relevant bills before it. Nor should it until the squalid arguments passing for debate take some account of their limitations.

Leah :

16 Oct 2012 2:07:33pm

"It is also worth noting that Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular have stridently warned against the dangers of idolatry - of making "God" in one's own image, and of allowing faith to become a pretext for injustice, evil and godlessness"Actually, in Christianity and Judaism at any rate, 'idolatry' is putting anything in place of God - putting anything in #1 priority in your life aside from God. I believe it is similar in a Muslim's eyes as well. Allowing faith to be a pretext for evil is also wrong, and I guess it could happen under idolatry, but it's not idolatry in and of itself.

Staff :

08 Nov 2012 11:43:25am

I believe it is actually idolatry itself in so far as by creating your own faith and set of rules you are not worshipping the one true God that the Bible speaks of but have traded God for your own construction of God and in doing so are worshipping another god that you have created which is idolatry. This is why we are told to not create images in place of God as it will fashion and distort our perspective of the true nature of God. As when Aaron fashioned a golden calf as an image of God for the people to worship in Exodus

Barj :

13 Oct 2012 11:56:51am

Of course the marriage equality debate is toxic. Haven’t all equality debates been toxic? But there is nothing preposterous about anyone demanding equality, even in marriage. So what if there are many ways of recognizing and celebrating love by couples, same sex or not? If couples want to marry they should be allowed to do so, same sex or not.The word “marriage” means “union”. All sexual connotations are appendices and to suggest there are any connotations of difference in the word is downright crazy, dictionaries not excepted.The problem of religious extremists probably cannot be solved but wherever possible it can be ignored and the answer to religious inspired violence is the same as for all kinds of violence. We call it the law.

M2M :

11 Oct 2012 5:26:54pm

One major problem - Scott et al don't seem to notice that marriage is defined in an Act of Parliament. It is not a religious event; it is something sanctioned and legalised by the law of the land. Anyway can pursue their own religious beliefs about marriage but how about giving some good legal reasons as to why they don't want an Act of Parliament changed to being it up to date. After all we had to do that with Indiginous people who Christians et al were happy to characterise as non-people. There had to be a campaign to change the Act. It was eventually achieved as will changes to the marriage Act. Nothing will interfere with Simon or others having their additional elements attached to marriage but all Australians will then be treated equally by their own Parliament and by their own laws. This is not about tolerance. It is about justice.

Barj :

Leah :

16 Oct 2012 2:10:26pm

" After all we had to do that with Indiginous people who Christians et al were happy to characterise as non-people"The difference is that the bible discusses marriage and what marriage is while it doesn't discuss aboriginals (but it does however affirm that all people are equal). So from a Christian POV they would have *something* to stand on when it comes to the marriage debate but the status of aboriginals is entirely separate to their religion.

Paul Clark :

23 Oct 2012 2:20:15am

The bible is an old governance from the roman empire to bring law, order and taxes to the empire. There is conflict between what is done by the church and it's forced opinion on how people should live their lives is not affirming equality among people. It's a business construct. Advertised for own sales of a unwarranted product. Remove Christian ideology from society and there is clear ethical standing for understanding.

Staff :

08 Nov 2012 11:53:02am

Christianity is not roman governance, in Rome christians were openly persecuted thrown into the games and killed because of their beliefs. If it was something sanctioned by Rome wouldnt they want it to look appealing as opposed to openly declaring them with persecution and death. Why dont you try finding out the essence of Christ and that of the Gospel before making up things.

earthfan :

09 Oct 2012 4:09:32pm

The debate on the subject of gay marriage shows a lack of understanding of what marriage is. It is found in all cultures, regardless of religion or concept of 'love', because all human beings on earth have to cope with same biological realities.

Human children need two parents and men want to know that the children they are raising are their own. While it is obvious who the child's mother is, because the baby comes out of her body, the identity of the father is unknown. Until the invention of DNA testing a few years ago, the paternity of a child could only be determined by a man's social relationship with the child's mother. Hence the importance attached to female marital fidelity.

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman such that the children of the woman are deemed to be the legitimate children of the man. Seen in this light, same sex marriage is just silly.

50 years ago, a prudent woman did not risk pregnancy until she had a contract with a man in which he undertook to share his earnings and home with her for his whole life, and accepted responsibility for providing for her children. Any woman who gave a man the opportunity for sexual gratification, for less, was "cheap". There were strong social sanctions applied to a woman who produced a child without a lifelong and legally binding marriage contract. Now, many children are supported by taxpayers instead of by their fathers.

The concept of marriage being mutually exclusive and for life, is Christian. The 'mutually exclusive' bit was eliminated when illegitimate children were given the same rights as legitimate children. Since then a wife has had to share her household's income with the children of other women, if her husband sired a child by adultery. If either spouse can break down the marriage on no grounds at all, without penalty, or the obligation to compensate the other spouse, then it is hard to see that marriage still exists.

Since the 1975 Family Law Act was passed, weddings have been nothing more than parties. Australians under the age of 45 have no experience of a society based on legally binding marriage, because such marriage has not existed in Australia for 37 years.

Barj :

13 Oct 2012 12:08:46pm

Oh Earthfan you are naïve. Since when did a bit of paper establish paternity in any sense other than the legal one? Now we have DNA, so perhaps more justice. But what has any of this got to do with same sex couples wanting to be married?

Novelactivist :

15 Oct 2012 9:10:18am

Why do those opposed to same sex marriage continue to insist that 'marriage' is found in all cultures when countless ethnographic studies prove just the opposite? Namely that human cultures have devised numerous ways to deal with human relationships and raising children, including various forms of communal child rearing.

I can only assume that people such as yourself do not read anything outside the bible and therefore do not know about the diversity of human cultures. Including those cultures in which paternity is irrelevant.

Paul Clark :

23 Oct 2012 2:32:36am

Christianity is a cult and acceptance is only provided through the controlling hand of the religion. No autonomous view of anything beyond the qualia of God. Since the book is 2012 years old it's dominance as a legitimate form of perception is now redundant.

Bryn Hutchinson :

09 Oct 2012 9:19:53am

The attempt by Christians against marriage equality to command public debate by asserting that marriage equality advocates are seeking to interfere with church freedom and belief are doing the church a disservice. One cannot help but also get the feeling it is disingenuous and self-serving.

Such assertion, by conservative and moderate Christians alike, used as a justification for keeping the current definition of marriage is a red herring. The framing of the debate as a religious freedom issue while also attempting to prevent secular citizens from enjoying full freedoms of citizenship is hypocritical. Moreover, one can ask that if the concern is for religious freedom, then what are groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby doing in support of those churches who already solemnise same sex religious marriages? The answer is nothing. This is because it is not a principled stand on religious freedom as such, it is a tactic to exert a particular theological world view on other churches and secular society as a whole.

The move is also downright untruthful as even the most basic understanding of the Australian Constitution and cursory reading of the Marriage Act highlights churches have nothing to fear from a secular change to a secular law. Moreover, the church already enjoys privileged status with its legislated ability to discriminate on the grounds of gender and sexuality; and this is in relation to social and educational services completely unrelated to religious practice.

While the religious freedom argument is a red herring, it is tactically useful to Christians opposed to marriage equality. The presentation of the church as a victim of discrimination can be a powerfully disorienting smokescreen in a society in which respecting the freedom of others is a core value. So following the Tasmanian and Federal Parliament’s failure to support marriage equality, and by extension failing to recognise the dignity of its same sex attracted citizens, we see those anti-equality Christians amplifying their complaints at being charged with ‘homophobia’ and insisting they have good reasons for their opposition.

Indeed ABC’s own Religion & Ethics editor Scott Stephens stated that the description by marriage equality advocates of arguments against equality as ‘homophobic’ is ‘preposterous’ and ‘corrupt’.

Stephens went on to argue in his editorial that there is a lack of real debate and that the solution to the issue is for equality advocates to accept civil unions; churches for their part should ‘sacramentally recognise’ these unions.

The fact that moderates such as Stephens are able to make such statements and sound like they are taking a middle ground is a function of this disingenuous framing. Marriage equality advocates are not asking for church recognition. We already have it. I can go to a number of churches and receive the sacrament of marriage. What we are claiming is that the

Barj :

13 Oct 2012 12:36:24pm

On the whole, a very good argument, despite being cut short in mid sentence at the end. Next time glance down to the word counter in the bottom left hand corner of the screen.However, I do have to question your apparent acceptance of a middle ground in the same sex marriage debate. Would you have accepted a middle ground for abolition of slavery or denial of citizenship for Aboriginals?Of course, I realize that your argument may well have been distorted by the editor’s chop and if so, then a postscript form you would be appreciated.

Leah :

16 Oct 2012 2:17:29pm

Barj, the problem is that the slavery and Aboriginal citizenship debates are based in equality and recognising all humans as equal. The gay marriage debate is NOT. As people have asserted time and time again, all Australians are subject to the same marriage laws, therefore they are all treated equally. The difference is that gay marriage proponents want those laws changed to accept a different type of 'marriage'. This is not a matter of equality. A matter of equality would be if the marriage laws applied to one group but not another. That is not the case.

James Picone :

Miowarra :

05 Oct 2012 11:42:12am

I disagree with the unstated premise to your article, Scott, that marriage is a religious matter and therefore that religious arguments should carry any weight in the discussion of marriage equality. I call to your attention that during the discussions on gender equality back in the 1960s & 70s, there were religious arguments made against legalising gender equality, against the establishment of "no-fault' divorce and the whole field of family law. Those arguments were rightly set aside as being irrelvant to the question of equality under the law, whether state or federal.Similarly, religious arguments against same-sex marriage intrude upon the purlieu of the State in its legislative role.

The days of canon law overriding civil statute law are long gone and rather than labelling opponents of equality as "bigoted" or "religious fanatics" I label them as "irrelevant".

Marriage is a civil matter, not religious.Recall from your religious historical records that religion (Christian, in England) only had relevance for a very short timespan, from (approx) 1300 to the mid-18thC. Marriage as an institution existed long before that timespan and continues without any religious requirement or involvement.

Hudson Godfrey :

15 Oct 2012 3:12:00pm

Actually I think that marriage as social institution is what the society makes of it. So that for some people it is both a religious and a civil undertaking, whereas for many who aren't religious it is just a civil one. What this means is that the distinction between church and state sponsored marriage vows was already made quite some time ago. So the fact that under the auspices of state recognition we now want to extend the right to same sex couples has nothing to do with the religious rites whatsoever. The fact that anyone even proposes to conflate the two at this late stage seems completely disingenuous.

If on the other hand people want to argue more or less purely what the social institutions do or do not honour for other reasons then I see they're completely free to do so. I simply think that there's more to be gained for society at large in honouring a more inclusive recognition of the bonds members form between one another.

Leah :

16 Oct 2012 2:19:52pm

Miowarra, I don't dispute that marriage has existed longer than Christianity, but I think you need to check your religious records if you think Christianity has only existed since the 1300s (and then prior to Christianity was its forefather Judaism which has been around thousands of years longer again). I don't see why it matters if it was in England or not.

Pasquino :

02 Oct 2012 6:49:59pm

I'm a former Christian who has a committed relationship with another man. Given the fact that I know intimately both worlds I am empathetic to what your saying here, even if I might disagree with your conclusions on marriage. The complexity here is clearly that we have a people who have had utterly awful experiences in the church and people who are going through; what can't be downplayed or washed over, that is a realigning and reassessing of fundamental beliefs. Someone who expresses this really well is the former Hillsong Pastor, Anthony van Brown. Change is always a difficult thing and as a society I think we need to see it as a collective continuum. Those who love their sex (and without in anyway meaning to be sensationalist, possibly Jesus himself as he did take on our humanity if you believe the scripture)are not 'other' than the Christian tradition they have been apart of and likewise neither are the church communities 'other' in their personal experience of homosexual women and men. Anthony van Brown would be a great person to contribute to this very debate of reconciliation, because "to reconcile" is what Christianity or dare I say humanity at its best, is all about.

Leah :

16 Oct 2012 2:26:24pm

Pasquino, you correctly assert that Christianity is about reconciliation. But it's about reconciliation of people to God - not people with people. In fact Jesus explicitly states that by following him, it's going to cause divisions between communities and families. You're going to have difficulty convincing Christians to abandon their convictions in the name of reconciliation when they have been warned by Jesus himself that faithfully following him is going to be divisive.

Pasquino :

21 Oct 2012 12:54:45am

Leah I hear you. I genuinely wasn't seeking to cop out for some fluffy pseudo-Christianity when I said that. But whereas you (and I once) saw Christianity as God revealed to humanity, I don't anymore. I do seek to look at it from the perspective of 'historical humility' though. As a meaningful embodiment of the human cultural experience and its evolution in expressing the macrocosm as we have seen it. So whereas you would see the divinity of Jesus I would see him as a highly legitimate embodiment of the complete human being.The truly human, or what he named himself, the Son of Man. From the perspective of the cultural historian the 'ideal man' seems always to be the 'divine man.'

When I was a Christian, I was unusually for a teenager, 'grounded' from going to church by my non-believing parents. The Christians I hung around with were only interested in reading the 'classics',contemporary Christianity was for wimps lol.. Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity had gone 'commercial' and we were imitating everything from Moravian Pietism to the Welsh revival.Catholic mysticism also got a mention, especially Thomas a Kempis and Madame Guyon. Sexual issues or anything else was irrelevant for I and those I hung around with willingly and joyfully had no rights, after all they had all 'died with Christ.' At High School I either had the Bible or Oswald Chambers devotional almost continuously in hand or in my bag. Having totally embraced a Christian Mysticism that encompassed Catholic spirituality to the holiness movement and early Pentecostalism I was totally asexual and never felt any struggle here. However during this time I did an evening course at Macquarie University about fragments of early Christian papyri.This course also cross referenced other religious cults of the period and what fascinated me was the way that just like Paul and the other writers of the epistles they broke human psychology down into a list of virtues,vices, fruits of the spirit etc.. This would come back to me later when I was confronted not by 'lust' but by a kind and loving affection for someone of my own sex. I then had to contend with The cultural limitations the New Testament writers had on the nature of human psychology.I would have been more than willing to ignore these feelings, but they resembled none of the willful or chosen acts that like some rigorous Puritan I had for years vehemently stood against in myself. That was what made it so confusing to the identity I was 'more than living' at the time. Over many years I resolved it. Having read of scores of accounts of devoted young people in the church driven to the point of despair and suicide (that luckily I never felt) the 'facts on the ground' forced me and may just leave you to ask about the further complexity of what it means to follow the good in this life ?

Pam :

01 Oct 2012 9:28:31am

It will be good to read more of your writing Scott - I can imagine how busy Aunty ABC keeps you!

Re: same-sex marriage. I would hope the Anglican church, to which I belong, would move towards recognising same-sex unions in a church blessing. I don't think there's much of a possibility of the word 'marriage' being accepted within the church, at present, for same-sex partnerships. My personal view is that this is a social justice issue and the people most affected, i.e. those in a committed same-sex relationship, are not privileged by their voices being 'heard' within the church.

Re: religious extremists. I think the recent outbreak of violence over the amateurish (and disgusting) video highlighted the sense of alienation, and rage, that those who are on the fringes experience. It's a powerlessness and will only be addressed by a more equitable sharing of power.

Re: Is Islam compatible with multiculturalism in Australia? I would hope so. Australia is a nation of immigrants and this cultural diversity gives us a great opportunity to be inclusive. It may take some time though.

Pasquino :

Rohan :

01 Oct 2012 1:59:04am

I am also pretty tired of people who oppose marriage equality being automatically described as "bigots" because, as someone who used to hold that view, I understand that for many people this is not an accurate description. However, it's also pretty clear to me how this perception has taken hold in the pro-LGB group: the most vocal anti-LGB lobbyists use arguments that are clearly bigoted and homophobic, and there is no real admonition of these views by the less vitriolic "traditional marriage" advocates. Does this mean the "traditional marriage" camp tacitly approves of what comes out of the mouths of the likes of Jim Wallace? Maybe - I can't actually tell. And that's not good enough.

ltrev :

30 Sep 2012 1:03:11pm

I know a young Christian fellow who feels so constrained to be nice that he has not yet discovered that he actually is nice. There are men who are so fearful of being gay that they do not allow themselves the liberty of discovering that same-sex interest is not a significant component of their personality.

The more general point is that there is a tension between trying to behave correctly (which is an understanding received from others) and recognising what one is inclined to do. A sense of duty can entirely suppress elements of one's nature or it can lead to an ongoing disconnect between what one does and says (hypocrisy).

Our behaviour is a compromise between our inclinations and what is good policy. (Obviously people should NOT do whatever they fancy in the moment.) This dichotomy is the essence of the current debate on gay marriage. It is a debate about what society expects of us (norms), versus what we are inclined to do (nature).

The source of changing norms, and hence our changing notion of what is good policy, lies in the fundamental recognition that we have an incomplete understanding of ourselves and of the groups we form. We presume that human nature is changing slowly compared to social and conceptual change and so we assume that changes in norms are driven by changes in society and changes in our understanding of the world.

Against the process of changing norms stands religion. Religion claims ultimate authority and claims to hold the keys to the afterlife. It's seeks to direct and JUDGE behaviour based on the notion that people can somehow be identified with their personal experience (the mind/soul) rather than identified as their body. Religion regards language as the driving force of behaviour (which shows that it's central concern is social control) and the detailed mechanics of the body is dismissed, despised even, as an enemy. "Hold you breath" it will say and will judge failure as a failure of spirit.

Religion's claim to authority is obsolete; it's afterlife is a scam; its understanding of people is cruel and inept; and its social engineering is self-interested. It is hard to understand why anyone, except those with a taste for being judgemental of outsiders (bigots), would promote a religious viewpoint on the subject of gay marriage.

Michael Kirby's religious solution to gay marriage, that of reading the Bible in a more legally sophisticated way, is apologism on its last legs: - it involves pretending to receive from the book what has actually been put into it. His notion that gay marriage is a component of the secular matter concerning how Government relates to individuals, couples and groups, is a much more useful understanding.

Scott Stephens' political compromise on gay marriage involves shifting church authority without explaining how it came to be wrong (in contradiction to his promotion of authority and tradition) and of quibbling

Gaile :

Peas n Pies :

29 Sep 2012 11:54:16pm

Dear Scott, what I miss among the plethora of articles dealing with Muslimic sensitivities and politicians expressing 'disgust' at a silly movie is the public discussion of the persecution of millions of Christians and other minorities in Muslimic countries. Why is there no outcry about this issue? Where are the articles?

Shane 2 :

28 Sep 2012 6:58:34pm

The current Youtube Movie clip controversy shows that many Muslims feel that it should be illegal to give condemnation of Muhammad or the Koran. Do the same Muslims extend this to important non religious figures and books? Errr No.Their view is essentially selfish. It is the view that what is important to me can't be condemned or ridiculed, but what is important to non-religious folks can.

The Koran condemns others for idol worship, godlessness, and sexual liberalism. That is fine, but it is hypocritical to want a text that condemns the actions of others to be specially protected from condemnation.

Stephens takes a pot shot at liberalism but it is not liberalism that is engaging in the aforementioned hypocrisy.

Religious people will selfishly try and get special protection from condemnation for religion. It is up to us non-religious to stand our ground and demand no special privaleges.

Hudson Godfrey :

29 Sep 2012 12:54:33pm

What you're saying as it applies in Australia calls for tolerance, but it should be remembered that in Arab countries it is illegal to disparage the prophet in any way shape or form. So to the part of the controversy that intersects those laws we shouldn't just disrespect their legal standing, these nations of people have a sovereign right to legislate and to be respected. If we'd like them to draft better more tolerant laws then it shouldn't be rocket surgery to figure out that respect is required in order to elicit respect in return. And there's a conversation that needs to be had respectfully. Even in disagreement.

Shane 2 :

13 Oct 2012 3:01:39pm

I respect the sovereignty of national governments to have their own rules and laws no matter how brutal or immoral I think they are. That does not mean I respect the rules themselves. I don't respect the death penalty in Iran or the US but I don't think there should be an international body that forces them to stop this practice.

I don't respect the selfishness of religious people who want their beliefs exempted from condemnation while reserving the right to condemn non-religious beliefs.

Hudson Godfrey :

15 Oct 2012 4:01:06pm

Fair enough Shane, we're not that far apart. Sometimes I just see it as useful to point out the difference between saying, "If you don't respect me first then I'm not going to respect you", and saying "I am going to respect you because I want us to have a better conversation about a few ideas we're in disagreement about." I think sometimes the problem may be that, while we hope our opposite number whoever they may be will reciprocate respectful behaviour, the fact that they may not shouldn't have nearly the bearing it seems to on our own sense of self respect.

As for how we understand respect for one another; many's the time when people will find that honestly declared antipathy is preferable to the cunningly concealed kind. In such cases I'd take the view that respect and deference are two quite different things, but it is still better to state your case persuasively than to indulge in the kind of rhetorical invective that some people tend to regard as pretty much the only way of dealing with any ideas they disagree with.

Bob :

27 Sep 2012 10:42:24am

I always find it interesting when the debate about marriage equality gets philosophical, simply because it ignores the harm caused by the arguments. Real Harm. Pleas of compromise and "Why can't we all just get along?" are meaningless to those on the front line of this issue, real people who have to face the fact that no matter what, we are on the fringes of the herd. Until you're on the edge of society, in the sights of the lions (real lions: depression, self-destructive behaviour, persecution by authoritarian and relgious institutions) you don't see the value of a fence difining what society is, and who is welcome in it.

Gaile :

29 Sep 2012 3:50:19am

I'm afraid your analogy has a strange acquaintance with Christians standing on the fringes of successive civilizations in the sight of lions and in harm's way, to which as is those who seek marriage equality, the accusers will be called to account for their words before the judgement seat.

lynne :

27 Sep 2012 7:35:31am

Religion creates an "us versus them" mentality. Therefore anyone not in the same cult so to speak, is wrong or evil or dumb and needs educationing into the "right " way of thinking. This applies to many religious leaders, and others, no matter how they like to disguise their bias. I feel it in your writings Scott. I feel you are trying every single argument, no matter how calmly and nicely you try to put it. The prejudice is still there. The homophobia, and yes it is homophobia, is quite detectable. You are not fooling anyone. Try not to put your ideas onto others. What right have you got to suggest an alternative to marriage to others? Are they all supposed to be grateful that you are so generous? Let others live their lives and you live yours and stay out of people's lives. Many people do not believe in your God, or any sort of organised religion, so why should they conform to what you feel they should, according to your personal belief system? And lastly why are the religious still so obsessed about this issue, when there are so many other humanitarian problems to attend to?

Cupcake :

Can what they see, as Rowan Williams puts it, be part of the world that we see?

Frankly, that's an absolute insult to polytheists and pagans, made even more unbelievably insensitive in view of Britians spectacular (and very mainstream) pagan heritage.

And I wouldn't be quoting Rowan Williams, who is widely regarded as a dhimmi of truly spectacular magnitude by islamoskeptics (those wanting to learn about islam can google 'dhimmi'). If anyhone should be defending the positive aspects of British culture (of which there are many), it should have been him, but he failed and was weak in the face of intimidation, obsfcucation (the main jihadist tactic) and violence. Where was the spirit of King Arthur? Whatever we choose to do in Australia, I don't think we should be folowing the British model. As I understand it - and I think there's proof on the net, which you'll never see on the ABC, but might in the tabloids - there are islamic ghettos forming, where Brits (now often called 'indigenous' British) aren't safe, FGM is widespread, there's widespread support for sharia (even it's nasty aspects) among middle-class muslims, and public events that are critical of islam are routinely intimidated into having to cancel (including non-racist events such as a BBC screening or meetings of university secular societies), and all of this is impossible to police because the numbers of incidents and people involved are so huge. I don't know what the UK's done wrong, but it probably starts with people like Rowan Williams being weak rather than intelligently assertive and courageos.

From the point of view of counter-jihadist theory, the situation is terrifiying and simple; islamisism can win either by asserting itself politically and socially, which is what it wants, or it equally wins if it just destabiises and creates a fragmented society, because these are the conditions under which jihad thrives. It's almost a no-win situation for other religions and cultures who want their dignity and rights respected, but what chance there is lies in being firm, clear, and unyielding in public dialogue, and demanding clarity back, and Rowan Williams is a good example of exactly what not to do and say.

Overall, a good article. I'm really enjoying ABC Religion and overall I think you're doing a good job (although I do think there's something of an Abreamaic bias). I particularly like your focus on disability. However, regardless of how much I like it, as a taxpayer I do intend to give you a thoroughly hard time, which I would do now about gay marriage, but I've got to go to work.

d-b :

28 Sep 2012 9:51:56am

Multiculturalism is where Britain went wrong. It's not PC to say it, but it is obviously true if you look at the situation with detachment.

Think about this... How many people do you know would even be reading articles like this one on the net? Maybe a few thousand educated individuals? The reality is that most people wouldn't be reading them and never will read them. Most people can't be bothered it's that simple. And as that is the human condition, there is always going to be undereducated people, close minded peopler those who adhere to extreme dogmatism etc etc.

It's all well and good for Williams to say we should mutual help each other, but the reality is most people are not going tot read his article. What in reality happens is that groups stick together and don't integrate. Hence the huge asian suburb in Brisbane where all other ethnic groups are absent. Or in Britain the Islamic ghettos, or in America the Black ghettos.

The reason for this is simply evolution and it will not change in the forcible future. If countries like France and Germany (who are not entirely ruined as England is) want to keep some semblance of cultural heritage they will have to scrap multiculturalist policy. It's harsh, but considering the general capabilities of the oi polloi it really is the only way. It's not PC, but it is the only way in a world where most people don't seek out articles like this one.

Chris W :

03 Oct 2012 5:35:44pm

It's not the only way (and I wonder how it could be done except on linguistic competence - hopefully not [a la White Aust policy] in any arbitrarily-selected language!). (Though I can understand an argument that Britain might have taken a problemmatically rapid number of imperial subjects when de-colonizing.)For religious people in particular do listen to their community leaders and family (and may have their own media). So it is also possible to engage with these people in respectful human sharing, and Williams has been doing that. Obviously that does require serious, patient and potentially vain community-building work in some cases, and isn't helped by invading related countries etc. It may be the very work we need to do to evolve global understanding.

IB :

26 Sep 2012 9:34:11pm

I was very pleased to read this essay from the author. It is so much more positive than the ones I have read previously. Bringing opposing parties closer together is always a worthy goal. It is a huge shift in the thinking of organised religion to acknowledge homosexual people as normal human beings with (almost) equal rights.

I think most people realise that the behaviour of a few individuals does not reflect on the behaviour of many. Many things are done in the name of a religion that horrify the majority of adherents. How many Christians were appalled by the Iraq invasion? How many Muslims are appalled by all the bombings carried out by Muslims against other Muslims. There is plenty of injustice in the world. The more enlightened people try to eliminate it and its causes, peacefully and with compassion for all concerned.

rob1966 :

It is always a mistake to label a majority based on the actions of a small minority - whether talking about religious groups or anything else.

However, it is something that we (as humans) unfortunately do all too easily, especially when the actions of that minority align with our own prejudices against that group.

Witness the reactions of many fundamentalist Muslims (albeit a minority, even on a global scale) against the actions of a very few Christians; and their extension of the actions of that Christian minority to reflect all Christians.

Witness, too, the reaction of fundamentalist Christians against the actions of the minority of Muslims; albeit prediminantly vocally rather than physically.

The answer is education, ideally secular, that opens people's minds to diversity and acceptance of difference. Dare I say it, it also requires moving people away from fundamentalist causes (whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever).

Hudson Godfrey :

26 Sep 2012 8:26:10pm

On same sex marriage there may well be people who base their arguments purely on homophobia. But it isn't the only argument. The idea that complementarity depends on difference is firmly contradicted by the very essence of what it means to be same sex attracted, that's the problem. What I do think is that marriage is basically a social tradition recognising that couples enter a state of kinship when they choose to commit to one another. And values like love and fidelity are honoured as well. But there's a real possibility that church and state are better placed to express those values quite differently. It becomes a social equality issue for the state to honour same sex unions because of property and kinship issues, and increasingly a political necessity to honour the wishes of a growing number of people who see exclusivity as discriminatory. Like it or not if the vernacular in common usage wants to adopt the term marriage then that's what it will be. I wonder if churches might take the view that for their traditions to remain intact they need to preserve and emphasise the difference in what their sacraments entail. Don't some of them do that now with civil marriage as anyway? Perhaps it even strengths their brand. But as far as that civil definition goes I think many Australians see the institution of marriage would be strengthened by extending it to honour members of the community who in recent times have become quite broadly accepted.

When it comes to religious extremists and Muslims my observation in political terms is that the former is code for the latter most of the time, but my formula is simple. We need more tolerance. Usually more exposure to one another on a personal level engenders better dialogue than theory, but there are some basic principles that are well understood, and they're mainly based on reciprocity. If we don't like one another for whatever reason, tribalism and bigotry usually suffice, then we can reciprocate hostilities. It should be clear to anyone that both sides will lose if this happens, and to anyone with any knowledge of history or politics that the West has more to lose. What we need to reciprocate instead is respect for one another, but respect is not granted automatically, it has to be earned.

Scott, you're defining multiculturalism in terms that I'd probably use to describe pluralism or indeed the secular separation of church and state. They're all geared towards establishing that neutral space, whereas multiculturalism is geared more towards integrating the elements of different cultures in order to enrich society. As such people are often blaming it unfairly for cultural tensions. The real culprit in my view is that opposed groups view their cultures as superior to one another lacking as they do the insight to recognise that a truly superior ideal isn't threatened by competing views.

Steely Dan :

26 Sep 2012 12:33:43pm

"... there are many ways of recognizing and indeed celebrating the love expressed by same-sex couples, while being convinced that "marriage" properly connotes sexual complementarity and thus sexual difference."

Attempting to re-frame the anti-equality position as some sort of egalitarian celebration of diversity is disingenuous. The charge (which seems to be coming mostly from Catholic ranks, I'm not sure why) that allowing gay marriage will somehow destroy gender identity is as ludicrous as suggesting that allowing mixed-race marriages will kill ethnic identity.

Novelactivist :

In regard to marriage equality you make the same mistake many people have made - of presuming to know what is best for others, namely that homosexuals should accept civil unions.

The only person who really knows what is best for themselves is a 'reasonable' adult. And if that adult wants to marry someone of the same sex then why not?

The reason you want them to compromise is to appease people who want to tell them how they should best lead their lives.

Again, any change in the law will not affect any religious definition of marriage. It will only affect the civil definition. Yet the religious insist on trying to control the lives of people who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

The real problem is the religious trying to control people's lives.

In regard to tolerance - never mistake the tolerance of the superficial with tolerance of the substantive. When any group seeks to control criticism, it usually seeks to control all criticism. The complaints about cartoons and films masks a much more profound totalitarian impulse that would censor substantive criticism as well, including any atheist criticism of Islam.

We will not be allowed to say that Mohammed was just a man, not a prophet.

JackAlison :

26 Sep 2012 8:33:25am

I think that the softly softly approach of "why can't we all get along," is pollyanna at it's worst. You don't seem to realise that in 70 countries throughout the world gay men and women face corporal punishment and in some cases the death penalty for being born that way. That may be a novelty to someone like you. However, this really exists and you can go to any Amnesty or Human Rights watch website to corroborate what I'm describing. When you step out of metropolitan areas the loneliness of growing up gay is not only a reminder of what it is to struggle with sexuality but also gay sexuality with few role models and teachers. The marriage debate is about identity and human rights. How would it feel for you to ask the entire nation to marry the person you love, to DEBATE your human rights? Think about what it would mean to have govt. discuss the core value, the DNA of who you are and therefore your right to exist and breathe? That has been the fight for the last quarter century with the accompanying bile and vitriol from a large part of the community that is now moving, and in particular christians who should know better. I would also say that there is an alarming tendency for the aggressor to play victim as we see now with the very public chest thumping of the ACL(Australian Christian Lobby) who recently compared health outcomes for gay people with smoking? Our courts are filled with this defensive practice where the protagonist is suddenly the victim being "demonised." Those who stand in the way of gay rights know that they are on the wrong side of history and that the decency and good will of ordinary people are not going to be tarnished by bigotry, ideology and excesses of religion.

Carmen :

25 Sep 2012 10:02:02pm

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your thoughts, and I certainly appreciate how little time there often is for writing, and how important it can be.

Some brief responses:

Marriage EqualityWell said by Rhubarb Spam in an earlier comment.And both sides of the argument are not “corrupt.” Only one is - the side seeking, on largely religious grounds, to perpetuate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Muslims and Extremists“The answer to such violence isn’t less seriousness about Islam and its tradition, but more.” Have you ever read the Qur’an? It (like the Old Testament) frequently promotes violence. And would more seriousness about Islam and its tradition mean supporting, for example, the subordination of women, and execution for apostasy?

MulticulturalismDo we really want Muslims, as you suggest, to “become an essential part of how we define ourselves”?As an atheist in a secular society, I certainly do not want that, since Islam, like all religions, is based on unjustified supernatural beliefs, and embodies a range of traditions that promote irrationality, discrimination and violence. I welcome people of all faiths or none to become part of the Australian community, and I embrace the cultural diversity that this brings. However, religious belief and identity should be private matters. No religion should determine the laws and practices of a secular society.

Steely Dan :

26 Sep 2012 12:52:28pm

I'm convinced most conservative religious commentators deliberately seek to portray the sensible appeal to make religion a private concern as oppressive, so they don't have to relinquish their position of privilege.

Steely Dan :

27 Sep 2012 2:25:56pm

"No one is asking religions to change their definition of marriage, they are asking the secular authorities."Absolutely agree. But I find it funny that many churches have no trouble with the government approving straight marriages that they will have nothing to do with (ie. non-religious marriages, interfaith marriages, in some cases inter-ethnic marriages), but kick up a stink when gay marriage gets a mention. This is one reason I'm convinced that homophobia is the driving force behind most opposition to gay marriage. I've heard Christian theologians try to justify this by saying that God is significantly less offended by the genitalia configuration of the adulterers in a non-religious marriage, but they sounded (understandably) unconvinced of their own arguments.

Hudson Godfrey :

04 Oct 2012 8:30:45pm

As I've said elsewhere Dan, marriage is currently used for a civil ceremony between straight couples. Civil marriages don't have sacramental status or carry any religious endorsement whatsoever. And what same sex couples are requesting equality to is that non-religious kind of marriage. Why churches even think it has aught to do with them has yet to be satisfactorily explained.

Rhubarb Spam :

25 Sep 2012 5:56:50pm

I look forward to more of your writing, Scott. Regarding the marriage debate, the suggestion that same-sex civil unions are a perfectly reasonable alternative to marriage misses the fundamental issue, if indeed any notion of equality is at stake. Three things lead to inequality: (1) Unfavourable treatment [occurs in] (2) comparable circumstances [based upon] (3) a person’s sexuality (an immutable characteristic). Being ‘equal’ before the law (in a secular polity based on the equality of all) means that same-sex couples should receive equally favourable *treatment*. But gay and lesbian couples are not equal when they are not accorded the same status as opposite-sex couples. Civil unions do not treat same-sex couples with the status of marriage – legally, morally, spiritually and socially. Britain and other countries have quickly realised this. (the claim that gay people have their full rights because of the 2008 Commonwealth law reforms amounts to saying they may have equality, but only as individuals). The differences of same-sex couples can be recognised while also pursuing equality because equality is about treatment, not definitions. Equality is the issue, not protecting traditional descriptions of a word.

Andrew Bolt Fan :

02 Oct 2012 2:20:40pm

Strange how 'marriage equality' proponents use the same argument as Andrew Bolt as to why Aboriginal people should not get any special recognition/assistance - because different treatment supposedly equals inequality.

This shows how shallow the arguments are when any recognition of difference is taken to mean discrimination.

Steely Dan :

05 Oct 2012 11:11:02am

Any difference in treatment is discrimination, ABF.

Discrimination can mean singling out one group for favourable treatment, singling them out for unfavourable treatment, or it can mean singling them out for different treatment that is not discernibly better or worse than the treatment other groups or individuals might receive.

People discriminate for good reasons (eg. making sure four year olds don't get driving licenses; giving some disabled people extra welfare payments), and they discriminate for bad reasons (eg. not letting certain ethnic groups vote; giving undue privileges to certain individuals).

Not all discrimination is bad, but telling gay people they should be happy with civil unions is like telling black people to stay away from the front of the bus.

On the Wider Web

There is something degenerate about the politics of Greek debt. It is as though nothing has been learned in 2,000 years - as if the left had forgotten the powers of capital and imperialism and the right cannot make a distinction between the financial economy and productivity.

From the beginning, polling was in the business to make headlines, and that is pretty much what it continues to do today. The seeming accuracy of results to the tenth of a percentage point doesn't stand up to basic methodological scrutiny, nor does the content of the questions themselves. If the devil is in the details, the details about religion polls are devilishly difficult to trust.

About the Editor

Scott Stephens

Scott Stephens is the Religion and Ethics editor for ABC Online. Before joining the ABC he taught theology for many years, and even did a stint as a parish minister with the Uniting Church in Australia. He has written extensively on the intersections among philosophy, theology, ethics and politics, as well as on modern atheism's dependence on the Christian legacy. He is a regular contributor to The Drum, Eureka Street and the Times Literary Supplement. He has edited and translated (with Rex Butler) two volumes of the Selected Works of the highly influential philosopher and cultural critic, Slavoj Zizek - including The Universal Exception, which was named by The Guardian newspaper one of its 'Books of the Year' in 2007.

Best of abc.net.au

Boutique cheese imports up

Australian boutique cheesemakers say the growing levels of imports in their field make it hard to compete.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.